So you're suggesting that it's a user's responsibility to proactively register their number with every single third party caller ID service that exists and ever will exist? And you consider that a "simple solution"?
It does not seem unreasonable for a service like TrueCaller to notify people that user-generated information about them is being irrevocably added to a globally public repository.
All I'm suggesting is that if a particular user is concerned about their safety, I would suggest they take steps to insure it.
But if one wants to push for regulation to prevent the emergence of apps like TrueCaller, then perhaps we can start regulating robo-calls and sales calls more effectively? Then no one would need to install apps like TrueCaller in the first place.
And I'm suggesting that your proposed solution isn't reasonable, or even discoverable for the majority of people. Clearly this person was concerned about their safety. And clearly they took steps to insure it.
Arguing that the real problem is robo-calls is besides the point. It's like saying if people just drove safer we wouldn't have to have seatbelts. Or if I had bajillions of dollars we wouldn't have to have this discussion, because I'd be off on a beach somewhere. It's marginally related at best.
But if that's the line you really want to take, TrueCaller could have a "That was spam" button, and if enough people click it then it could block the calls. The faux caller ID part doesn't need to be part of the service.
Google Voice offers a somewhat similar service, but it flips the onus around. When enabled the caller has to identify themselves before the call can get through, and then the recipient can screen based on that. This approach is wildly more discoverable for the caller (who the information is attached to), and similarly filters out robo-calls.
> It does not seem unreasonable for a service like TrueCaller to notify people that user-generated information about them is being irrevocably added to a globally public repository.
If they live in Europe, as far as I'm aware, they should actually also need the users consent if the information contains anything like a name (which it most likely does) and a way for users to have their personal data erased permanently.
Maybe there's some exception why they don't need to do this; can someone provide some more info on this?
Does every Wikipedia entry about a person in Europe need that person's permission before it can be published? Can I make Wikipedia delete my Wikipedia page permanently with no way for anyone to ever to recreate it? What about a blog post? If a write about a friend of mine doing something on my blog, do I need my friend's written permission before I can post?
Actually, articles on non-famous people require extra notibility as there are more protections for libel. Helpfully, most people with wikis are famous.
If there's a large enough public interest, then information about a person can be published.
And no, I can't just create a wikipedia page for my neighbor and post their phone number there, that'd be illegal and would get me into serious trouble.
That sounds crazy. You mean if I know some guy named Dave and he lives in Europe, to tell somebody about that I need Dave's permission? Moreover, I should give Dave a way to make me forget his name? I'm pretty sure even in Europe things aren't as bad as this. Though who knows...
uh... you do realize there's a legal difference between telling something to a friend and publishing it to the web, right? They're two completely different things.
> I'm pretty sure even in Europe things aren't as bad as this.
I get your point, but from my (European) perspective, it's the rest of the world where things are bad. I personally do quite enjoy the fact that, in theory at least, everyone is not allowed to simply publish my personal information as they see fit.
> there's a legal difference between telling something to a friend and publishing it to the web, right?
Actually no. Most of things I tell my friends I do by publishing it on the Web (e.g. Facebook, or other social forums).
> I personally do quite enjoy the fact that, in theory at least, everyone is not allowed to simply publish my personal information
You realize what you are aiming at is control over the speech of other people? I.e. you say "since other people call me Dave Whatshisname, now every time anybody utters the sequence of letters 'Dave Whatshisname', I want them to ask permission from me beforehand". This "personal information", taken at this form, is an insane construct - in fact, you are asking to control what other people think and speak in private (if the computer records are extension of memory, which effectively they are) about you. I can't imagine larger violation of privacy than that, and yet it is done in the name of privacy. Doesn't it feel weird?
It does not seem unreasonable for a service like TrueCaller to notify people that user-generated information about them is being irrevocably added to a globally public repository.